Guest Column: Building green makes economic sense

When deciding whether to build green, usually the next questions are, “How much will it cost?” and “Can I afford to build green?”

There are three attitudes about building green:

• “Heck no, build it the same old way.”

• “I think I want to build green, but I probably can’t afford a lot of fancy technology.” This is the attitude of most building owners.

• “Yes, absolutely, let’s build green and demonstrate sustainable technologies to the entire community.” This attitude is reserved for elite environmentalists.

So how do architects and engineers answer the looming question of how much it costs to design and build green?

Some experts say it doesn’t have to cost anything, and others have researched and tried to develop predictors for green projects’ financial outcome.

I know of three studies that are relevant to determining costs. All used the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system as the basis for analysis. The rating system divides design strategies into six categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation in design.

The 578-page General Services Administration LEED Cost Study, prepared by Steven Winters Associates and published in October 2004, analyzed two federal projects: a new 262,000-square-foot courthouse and a nine-story, 306,000-square-foot renovated office building. This study gave a cost per square foot and a percentage of total construction for each of the LEED points pursued by each project. The courthouse was $220 per square foot, and the office building cost $130 per square foot. The study, however, cautioned that “cost impacts may not be transferable to other project types or building owners.”

Depending upon the level of LEED certifications, the GSA study summarized that additional construction costs ranged from .04 percent savings to 8.1 percent in additional costs – or savings of 76 cents to an increase of $17.70 per square foot.

Soft costs such as design team fees ranged from an additional 35 cents to 80 cents, according to the report, which noted that the more green expertise the designers had, the lower the soft costs.

Another ongoing study collects LEED cost data. Utah-based MHTN Architects Inc. has developed conceptual LEED estimating software, EarlyEco, which estimates and models construction costs, energy savings, payback periods, alternative design schemes, LEED-submittal costs and the estimated cost for each LEED certification level (certified, silver, gold and platinum).

Several articles have been written about MHTN’s tool development, including “Crunching the Numbers for LEED K-12 Schools,” in the April issue of School Planning and Management magazine. In a personal phone conversation with the author, Myron Willson, AIA, LEED AP, I learned that his conclusion concurred with the GSA study. Again this was qualified, and it was noted that each project must be analyzed individually, addressing specific site conditions and building nuances.

The third and latest study, “Cost of Green Revisited,” published by Davis Langdon in July 2007, shows essentially the same results he found in a 2004 version. According to the study, “There is no significant difference in average costs for green building as compared to nongreen building … in many areas of the country, the contracting community has embraced sustainable design, and no longer sees sustainable design requirements as additional burden to be priced in their bids.”

This study, like the other two studies, addresses cost for each individual LEED point. One common prediction in all of the studies was a clear message that 22 to 26 points in the LEED rating system have no cost implications. (It takes 26 points to obtain the lowest level of LEED certification.) These strategies for green design could therefore be seen as “smart design” decisions that the design team should employ as a “standard of care” for all design projects.

Regardless of whether the building owner wants to pursue the recognition that comes with obtaining LEED rating, one can argue that we just need to get back to a baseline of quality in our design and construction practices that, if embraced by the majority, will ultimately have a very positive impact on our environment, reduce our carbon footprint and intrinsically bring societal benefits, such as health, productivity and comfort, to building occupants. To adequately understand the cost of being green, the most reliable method is to begin talking early about how owners want their buildings to perform. Design teams must develop an integrated and holistic approach to building design, identify these goals early, and develop a cost model for each project from the very beginning.

Lisa Drew-Alton is an architect with Sapp Design Associates Architects PC in Springfield and a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-accredited professional. She may be reached at drew-alton@sdaarchitects.com.